Trottie v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Trottie v. State

39 A.D.3d 1094, 832 N.Y.S.2d 832

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 26, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 39 A.D.3d 1094 (Trottie v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Trottie v. State, 39 A.D.3d 1094, 832 N.Y.S.2d 832 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Hard, J.), entered April 3, 2006, upon a decision of the court in favor of defendant.

Claimant, an inmate, asserts that personnel at the correctional facility where he was incarcerated neglected to follow protocols and delayed appropriate treatment for his stomach problems. Following a trial at which claimant was the only wit[1095]*1095ness, the Court of Claims dismissed the claim. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. Claimant failed to produce at trial the facility’s protocols or to otherwise present pertinent evidence of a deviation from the appropriate standard of care (cf. Kagan v State of New York, 221 AD2d 7, 10-16 [1996]). Moreover, even assuming improper delay in providing treatment, it was incumbent upon claimant to show by competent expert evidence that the delay was a cause of his alleged ensuing medical problems (see Duffen v State of New York, 245 AD2d 653, 654 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 810 [1998]; see also Lowe v State of New York, 35 AD3d 1281, 1282 [2006]; Tatta v State of New York, 19 AD3d 817, 818 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 712 [2005]). This he failed to do. The remaining arguments have been considered and found to be without merit.

Crew III, J.E, Peters, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Hard, J.), entered April 3, 2006, upon a decision of the court in favor of defendant.

Claimant, an inmate, asserts that personnel at the correctional facility where he was incarcerated neglected to follow protocols and delayed appropriate treatment for his stomach problems. Following a trial at which claimant was the only wit[1095]*1095ness, the Court of Claims dismissed the claim. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. Claimant failed to produce at trial the facility’s protocols or to otherwise present pertinent evidence of a deviation from the appropriate standard of care (cf. Kagan v State of New York, 221 AD2d 7, 10-16 [1996]). Moreover, even assuming improper delay in providing treatment, it was incumbent upon claimant to show by competent expert evidence that the delay was a cause of his alleged ensuing medical problems (see Duffen v State of New York, 245 AD2d 653, 654 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 810 [1998]; see also Lowe v State of New York, 35 AD3d 1281, 1282 [2006]; Tatta v State of New York, 19 AD3d 817, 818 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 712 [2005]). This he failed to do. The remaining arguments have been considered and found to be without merit.

Crew III, J.E, Peters, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 1094, 832 N.Y.S.2d 832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trottie-v-state-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack